that's even a better idea. A gyro sensor would trigger braking of the train if there is too much centripetal force.
whats with the 3rd recent train derailment
- Thread starter big apple
- Start date
Everyday, over 200,000 people travel on the Go Train. Take a different set of 200,000 people and put them in cars to go to work. Over a year, see how many of the car drivers go have accidents, get injured, or die, and compare those numbers to the Go Train passengers.its getting to the point where i would think twice now about train travel
If the news reported every single car death with the same intensive coverage as 80 people dying, you'd be too scared to come out of your house. But car accidents are somewhat accepted as normal, even if they are tragic. It's all a matter of perception. Trains are statistically much safer in Toronto.
I commute by Go and Via once in a while. I don't recall the train ever
has to go around a sharp curve after a long straight stretch on any of
the routes I've travelled. And unlike the ill-fated speeding train of Spain
neither Go and Via run at high speed. I'll continue to travel by train
as needed at least in Canada without worrying about my safety.
has to go around a sharp curve after a long straight stretch on any of
the routes I've travelled. And unlike the ill-fated speeding train of Spain
neither Go and Via run at high speed. I'll continue to travel by train
as needed at least in Canada without worrying about my safety.
I would offer that elevators are THE safest mode of transportation!I thought airliners also claim to be the safest mode of travel? So who is lying?
As for trains, I think there are many more train crashes than plane crashes (collisions with vehicles and animals and wayward pedestrians). However I would think there are relatively few train passenger fatalities brought about by railway crashes, but one would have to compare the stats.
Hey look, people have compared the stats, lol. Here are the numbers for 2010 in the US, admittedly a year where there were zero passenger plane deaths from scheduled air travel in that country. A quick google search however brings up several sources that confirm air travel remains the safest by far. http://news.msn.com/us/despite-recent-accidents-airplane-travel-still-safest although there are occasional years where trains are safer. Overall, planes and trains remain EXTREMELY safe modes of transport as compared to cars.
Elevators remain the safest mode of transport though. Of the 20-30 annual elevator deaths worldwide, most (in some years all) are maintenance workers getting killed fixing the elevator, as opposed to passengers dyeing during a fall or whatnot. Anyhow....
You're still taking a much bigger risk every time you climb into your car. How many times do you think about that truly dangerous choice?
As Christopher Robin told Pooh, "You're more brave* than you know". The alternative is to be a big apple of very little brain, and that goes for us all, until we learn to think beyond driving our own cars for everything.
*for some idiotic reason TERB censors the comparative degree of 'brave', writing b********** instead; I didn't type those asterisks. The superlative, 'bravest', is OK. So is fuck.
Not really. If you were to take as many trips on a train (or plane) that you do on a car, and calculate accident stats over trips vs. km/trip travelled, you'd find that car travel may be safer.
This very brief Slate article is the most detailed analysis I found in my 10 minutes of hunting around on this interesting topic. I've read the plane vs car articles but never thought about trains before. There are apparently lots of variables that come into play when determining "rates" of safety. But all the reports that pop up from a quick google search make it clear that whether you measure by distance or number of trips or length of trip or some algorithm that combines all those factors, planes and trains are many many times safer than cars.Not really. If you were to take as many trips on a train (or plane) that you do on a car, and calculate accident stats over trips vs. km/trip travelled, you'd find that car travel may be safer.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2004/04/which_are_safer_trains_or_planes.html
I thought airliners also claim to be the safest mode of travel? So who is lying?
I took a tour years ago at the Pickering Nuclear Power plant. The tour guide was an engineer. He talked about the safety of nuclear energy and that statistics that show otherwise were misinterpreted or manipulated.
He said that if you divided plane accidents by the # of trips you fly, that air travel would be more dangerous than car travel. The reason why air travel is touted as safer is because they compare accidents over distance travelled. The deception is that one takes many more trips with a car than with a plane. If you flew as much as you drive, you're likely to be in a plane crash which is usually fatal.
Really? I'd like to check this myself but I heard otherwise (see post #30).This very brief Slate article is the most detailed analysis I found in my 10 minutes of hunting around on this interesting topic. I've read the plane vs car articles but never thought about trains before. There are apparently lots of variables that come into play when determining "rates" of safety. But all the reports that pop up from a quick google search make it clear that whether you measure by distance or number of trips or length of trip or some algorithm that combines all those factors, planes and trains are many many times safer than cars.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...2004/04/which_are_safer_trains_or_planes.html
This is a fantastic way to see how statistics can be played with to say whatever the briefer wants them to say! So many variables and so many ways to apply and interpret the stats. The PBS article argues that since most plane crashes occur on takeoff and landing, that number of miles flown is not as important as number of trips. Do you measure total population or total travelling population? What country are you in (much safer to train it in the US than to train it in India). Etc.
They all pin air travel as the safest though, that much is clear. Most sites don't talk about trains. I am confident that there are academic resources available but there's only so much time I'm willing to spend looking into all this, and I'm not about to dig through jstor for this stuff lol. At the end of it, perceptions of safety aren't a factor for me when I travel. Money and time are really the only factors that impact my decisions, so.... oh well!! Interesting reading though.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/how-risky-is-flying.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/26/will-i-die-on-a-train.html
Geez, look at the variables this analysis brings into play. Good grief!!! http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/winter/halperin.htm
They all pin air travel as the safest though, that much is clear. Most sites don't talk about trains. I am confident that there are academic resources available but there's only so much time I'm willing to spend looking into all this, and I'm not about to dig through jstor for this stuff lol. At the end of it, perceptions of safety aren't a factor for me when I travel. Money and time are really the only factors that impact my decisions, so.... oh well!! Interesting reading though.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/how-risky-is-flying.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/26/will-i-die-on-a-train.html
Geez, look at the variables this analysis brings into play. Good grief!!! http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/winter/halperin.htm
This is a fantastic way to see how statistics can be played with to say whatever the briefer wants them to say! So many variables and so many ways to apply and interpret the stats. The PBS article argues that since most plane crashes occur on takeoff and landing, that number of miles flown is not as important as number of trips. Do you measure total population or total travelling population? What country are you in (much safer to train it in the US than to train it in India). Etc.
They all pin air travel as the safest though, that much is clear. Most sites don't talk about trains. I am confident that there are academic resources available but there's only so much time I'm willing to spend looking into all this, and I'm not about to dig through jstor for this stuff lol. At the end of it, perceptions of safety aren't a factor for me when I travel. Money and time are really the only factors that impact my decisions, so.... oh well!! Interesting reading though.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/how-risky-is-flying.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/26/will-i-die-on-a-train.html
Geez, look at the variables this analysis brings into play. Good grief!!! http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/winter/halperin.htm
Perhaps the tour guide I alluded to spoke about earlier stats that compared accidents over distances travelled. In any event, I don't see why miles flown is not important if a plane crashes upon landing (in which case, it has completed its journey).
Thanks for the search/links.
another train accident today in switzerland
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/29/dozens-injured-in-head-on-passenger-train-collision-in-switzerland-reports/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/29/dozens-injured-in-head-on-passenger-train-collision-in-switzerland-reports/
another train accident today in switzerland
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/29/dozens-injured-in-head-on-passenger-train-collision-in-switzerland-reports/
Trouble ahead, trouble behind..
even after today's swiss crash, still statistical anomaly?All the recent derailments are just a statistical anomaly, a coincidence if you will.
Driver in Fatal Spanish Train Was on Phone, Court Says
MADRID — The driver of the train that derailed and killed 79 people in Spain was on the phone and traveling at 95 mph (153 kph) — almost twice the speed limit — when the crash happened last week, according to a preliminary investigation released Tuesday.
The train had been going as fast as 119 mph (192 kph) shortly before the derailment, and the driver activated the brakes "seconds before the crash," according to a written statement from the court in Santiago de Compostela, whose investigators gleaned the information from two "black box" data recorders recovered from the train.
The speed limit on the section of track was 50 mph (80 kph).
The crash occurred near Santiago de Compostela in northwestern Spain, and was the country's worst rail accident in decades. Some 66 people are still hospitalized for injuries, 15 of whom are in critical condition.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/07/30/world/europe/ap-eu-spain-train-derailment-.html
Source: New York TimesDriver of the train might have fallen asleep. Doesn't look like
speed reduction was attempted while the train went around
that curve.
MADRID — The driver of the train that derailed and killed 79 people in Spain was on the phone and traveling at 95 mph (153 kph) — almost twice the speed limit — when the crash happened last week, according to a preliminary investigation released Tuesday.
The train had been going as fast as 119 mph (192 kph) shortly before the derailment, and the driver activated the brakes "seconds before the crash," according to a written statement from the court in Santiago de Compostela, whose investigators gleaned the information from two "black box" data recorders recovered from the train.
The speed limit on the section of track was 50 mph (80 kph).
The crash occurred near Santiago de Compostela in northwestern Spain, and was the country's worst rail accident in decades. Some 66 people are still hospitalized for injuries, 15 of whom are in critical condition.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/07/30/world/europe/ap-eu-spain-train-derailment-.html
another train derailment today. still a coincidence?
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/officials-work-to-clean-up-train-derailment-in-louisiana-100-homes-remain-evacuated-1.1398405
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/officials-work-to-clean-up-train-derailment-in-louisiana-100-homes-remain-evacuated-1.1398405
By that point it's far too late to start braking.that's even a better idea. A gyro sensor would trigger braking of the train if there is too much centripetal force.
